The article has two aims. First, it endeavours to define the limits of authorship in Karel Sabina (1811-1877) and Jan Erazim Sojka's (1826-1887) Nasi muzove (Our fighters, 1862-63), a set of twenty biographical sketches of Slav writers (and one Irishman). Since it has to have as its starting point the most important analysis of this work - Alexandr Stich's Stylisticke studie III: Sabina, Nemcova, Havlicek (1976) -, the article also constitutes a critical commentary on Stich's book. Stich analyzes only two chapters of Nasi muzove in detail - those about Havlicek and Nemcova. In addition to Stich's remarks on the Havlicek essay, this article discusses the origin of the essay with reference to important material that Stich either did not know or ignored - namely, Sojka's original version of the article in Zabavnik Lipy ceskomoravske, which Sabin comprehensively edited for Nasi muzove, as well as Sabina's manuscript criticism of Havlicek's biography by Alfred Waldau (1837-1882) and Waldau's Die Bewegungen in Prag im März 1848 (1859). Sabina's considerable share in writing the text is thus more precisely determined; Stich's argument that the quotations from Havlicek's articles in Nasi muzove may have been deliberately altered is not challenged. The article also reproduces Stich's analysis of the volume's essay on Nemcova, but takes issue with some of his conclusions. It also mentions various polemics with Stich on his method (particularly, Josef Sebek's) and his sources (Jaroslava Janackova's taking issue with Stich's suspicion that four letters of Nemcova's, which we know only from Nasi muzove, were forgeries). In particular, the author of the article agrees with Stich's unfinished argument about the possible interpolation of literary allusions in the four letters, and presents an analogous example of Sabina's changes to Eduard Hindl's (1811-1892) letter to the publican Svoboda in Sabina's 'Uvod povahopisny' (Character sketch by way of an introduction, 1845) to Macha's Collected Works. On the basis of style analysis and other tools of textual criticism the article concludes by attributing the individual parts of Nasi muzove to Sojka or Sabina, and considers the circumstances in which the book was written. The author, in contrast to Stich, reconfirms that the editor of the volume was Sojka, who for the most part, however, used material sent to him by Sabina; Sojka then frequently altered this material, particularly in each essay's introduction or conclusion, usually to their detriment. On the whole, one may attribute to Sojka the authorship of about one-third of Nasi muzove, but the principal author was Sabina. The fact that Sabina was not involved in the final manuscript of Nasi muzove and remained anonymous probably demonstrates that Stich was mistaken in saying that Sabina was clandestinely using the book as a contribution to the Sabina cult.
Financed by the National Centre for Research and Development under grant No. SP/I/1/77065/10 by the strategic scientific research and experimental development program:
SYNAT - “Interdisciplinary System for Interactive Scientific and Scientific-Technical Information”.